Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to add defendants after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellants relied on the discoverability principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court agreed that the motion could be dealt with at the motion stage without requiring a trial on credibility, and upheld the Master's exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claims for spousal support, a restraining order, and a $24,000 lump sum pursuant to a marriage contract.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 19(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act because the total monetary value of the claims could not be ascertained to be under $25,000.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants appealed an order of a Master that set aside a default judgment on the condition that the amount claimed in the construction lien action be paid into court.

The plaintiff argued the appeal was improperly brought before the Divisional Court.

The court held that an order setting aside a default judgment is an interlocutory order, not a final order, because it does not finally determine any substantive rights of the defendants.

Consequently, under section 17(1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, the appeal should have been brought to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The appeal was quashed.

The appellant, a photographer, appealed a trial judgment dismissing his copyright infringement action against a golf club and its CEO.

The appellant had taken photographs of the club and provided them to the CEO, who later used them in promotional materials.

The trial judge found the appellant had gifted the photos and granted an oral license for their use.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the oral license constituted a valid defence to infringement, as non-exclusive licenses do not need to be in writing under the Copyright Act.

However, the court reversed the trial judge's finding that the respondents owned the copyright in the 'July to October photographs', as an exclusive license requires a written grant.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order setting aside an ex parte Anton Piller order.

The motion judge had set aside the order due to material non-disclosure, including the failure of the plaintiff, a status Indian, to disclose that his undertaking as to damages was unenforceable under s. 89(1) of the Indian Act, and the failure to present a complete factual picture.

The Divisional Court found that while the failure to disclose the Indian Act provision might not alone justify setting aside the order, the overall material non-disclosure regarding the business relationship justified the motion judge's decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Zurich Canada, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a simplified rules proceeding.

The motion judge had found a live issue regarding whether a confidentiality clause was an implied term of a settlement and whether the defendant was liable for the actions of its counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issues of general importance extending beyond the immediate parties.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding fraud and awarding damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of fraud, noting the appellant falsely represented that a $123,000 deposit had been paid.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the valuation of the equipment.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct an error in the interest calculation, reducing the judgment amount to $18,533.43.

The appeal and cross-appeal were otherwise dismissed.

The appellant municipality appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent damages for vehicle damage caused by a pothole.

The trial judge found the municipality had a reasonable inspection system but still concluded it ought to have known about the pothole.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the finding of an adequate inspection system satisfied the municipality's statutory defence under the Municipal Act.

As there was no evidence of inadequate inspection or repair at the specific location, the municipality was not liable.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that dismissed its claim for unpaid rent and awarded the tenants $10,000 in damages for the landlord's unreasonable refusal to consent to an assignment of the lease.

The landlord argued the trial judge exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court by effectively granting a set-off of $10,000 against the rent claim plus a $10,000 judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded that the landlord's breach terminated the right to rent after May and separately gave rise to a cause of action for damages.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a defamation action against a newspaper and others, appealed an order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in law by not applying section 12 of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Court held that section 12 provides a specific, more onerous procedure for security for costs in libel actions involving newspapers, which takes precedence over the general provisions of Rule 56 pursuant to Rule 1.02(1)3.

The Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that refused to strike out portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the infant plaintiff's death in a hospital was caused by overcrowded conditions resulting from the funding and restructuring decisions of the former Premier and Health Minister.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the claims of negligence and abuse of public office.

The court also found that the motion judge's approach conflicted with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the duty of care owed by public authorities, and that the issues raised were of significant public importance.

The appellant, an indigent litigant, appealed the dismissal of his motion for a declaration that Small Claims Court fees violate the Charter and the common law right of access to justice.

The Divisional Court held that while poverty is not an analogous ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter and the fees do not violate s. 7, the absence of a statutory provision allowing for the waiver of fees for indigent persons with meritorious claims violates the common law constitutional right of access to justice.

The Court ordered that a statutory amendment be enacted to permit proceedings in forma pauperis in the Small Claims Court.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's order dismissing an application for judgment in accordance with minutes of settlement reached at mandatory mediation.

The settlement required the execution of a license agreement, but the parties could not agree on whether it should include an indemnification provision.

The motions judge found the settlement unenforceable as there was no agreement on essential terms.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that a decision would be of significant benefit to the profession.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a trial judge's decision declaring a mistrial and awarding costs to the defendants.

The mistrial was declared due to the plaintiffs' counsel's inflammatory and prejudicial opening address to the jury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions that mirrored the cumulative impact of the prejudice in this case, and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that required it to continue funding Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy for a six-year-old autistic child, despite the program's maximum age limit of six.

The motion judge had granted the mandatory order based on the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the child would suffer irreparable harm without continued treatment and that the balance of convenience favoured the child.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and rejecting the Crown's argument that the order amounted to a suspension of the legislation.

The appellants, Axor Construction Canada Inc. and London Guarantee Insurance Company, appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $455,462.85 in damages under the Construction Lien Act.

The dispute arose from a construction subcontract where the appellant stopped payment on a certified cheque due to a backcharge related to a Fair Wage Policy.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's actions, including stopping payment and demanding an unjustified bond, constituted a fundamental breach of contract that excused the respondent from continued performance.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to add a third party as a defendant in a snowmobile accident claim.

The Master had dismissed the motion due to case management delays and found the proposed claim untenable in law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by relying on an outdated timetable and by concluding the proposed pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff was granted leave to add the third party as a defendant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the sufficiency of settlement documents and compliance with regulations prior to the commencement of litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge correctly applied established legal principles to uncontested facts and that the proposed appeal raised no question of general public importance.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment of its appeal to retain new counsel after its previous counsel was removed from the record.

The applicants opposed the adjournment, citing a pattern of delay and concerns about the respondent's solvency, and brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but imposed strict terms, including making the new hearing date peremptory to the respondent, requiring the respondent to post security of $332,675, and ordering the respondent to pay $5,000 in costs thrown away.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for false arrest and false imprisonment against the police and municipality.

He argued the trial judge should have considered negligence and erred in finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him without further investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that negligence was not pleaded and the trial judge had no duty to advise the unrepresented appellant to amend his claim.

The Court also found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on the complainants' statements.